Staples et al v. Governor, NH, State of et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
FRANK STAPLES and
KATHLEEN BUSSIERE
v. Civil No. 24-cv-331-LM-TSM
GOVERNOR, STATE OF
NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Self-represented Plaintiffs, Frank Staples and Kathleen Boussiere, brought federal and state
claims against former New Hampshire Governor, Christopher Sununu; the New Hampshire
Attorney General John Formella; and Charles O’Leary. Doc. No. 1. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint in which they added, as Defendants, Governor Ayotte, the State of New Hampshire, the
New Hampshire State Police, the Town of Newfields (New Hampshire), the Newfields Police
Department, Gregory DeLuca, Megan Walsh, and the estate of Kathleen O’Brien. Doc. No. 48.
Plaintiffs did not serve the new Defendants named in the amended complaint within the time
allowed or within the extended time allowed. End. Or. Sept. 9, 2025; Doc. No. 82. As a result, the
court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why the claims against the added Defendants, other than
Governor Ayotte, should not be dismissed for lack of service. Doc. No. 82 at pg.2.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that “[i]f a defendant is not served within
90 days after the complaint is filed, the court – on notice or on its own after notice to the plaintiff
– must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made
within a specified time.” Then, if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure to serve, “the court
must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); see also
Hewes v. Pangburn, 162 F.4th 177, 201 (1st Cir. 2025).
Case 1:24-cv-00331-LM-TSM Document 86 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Plaintiffs filed a response to the show cause order in which Plaintiff Staples stated that he
had medical and cognitive impairment during the time allowed to complete service. Doc. No. 83
at pg. 1. He also stated that he has a history of post-concussion syndrome. Id. Staples further states
that he was homeless, that he was incarcerated for five days, and that his self-represented status
impaired his ability to complete service. Id. at pg. 2. Staples asks that Plaintiffs be granted an
additional 45 days to complete services. Id.
Defendants filed a response to Plaintiffs’ filing, in which they note that Plaintiffs have
previously raised the same reasons Frank Staples provides for not completing service, argue that
the court should not credit those reasons for delay, and point out that Staples’s reasons do not apply
to Plaintiff Bussiere. Doc. No. 84 at pg. 2. Defendants also provide exhibits to show that Staples
was litigating in at least five other cases in New Hampshire state courts during the time he claims
to have been unable to complete service on the new Defendants: two in the 6th Circuit, District
Division, in Concord, one in the 10th Circuit, District Division in Brentwood, and one at the New
Hampshire Supreme Court. Id. at pgs. 2-4. Defendants also cite a YouTube video of Staples in
which he says that his strategy in litigation is to be an administrative burden. Id. at pgs. 4-5.
Defendants argue that any extension of time for service is inappropriate given Staples’s conduct
and the burden placed on defendants. Id. at pgs. 5-6.
Plaintiffs had more than eight months to complete service. Further, there are two named
Plaintiffs in this case: Frank Staples and Kathleen Bussiere. As Defendants point out, Plaintiffs do
not show cause why Plaintiff Bussiere could not complete service. For that reason alone, Plaintiffs’
response to the show cause order is insufficient.
In addition, the fact that a plaintiff is self-represented is not good cause for failing to
complete service within the time allowed. Rice v. Kennedy, No. 23-cv-11940-NMG, 2025 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 158008, at *44-*45, 2025 WL 2325061, at *17 (D. Mass. June 23, 2025), report and
Case 1:24-cv-00331-LM-TSM Document 86 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 4

3
recommendation adopted (Aug. 11, 2025). Further, even a self-represented plaintiff who suffers
from homelessness and post-concussive syndrome need only be given one extension of time to
complete service. Laurent v. Wal-Mart Store E., LP, No. 25-cv-185MRD, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
262197, at *1-2, 2025 WL 3634109, at *1 (D.R.I. Dec. 15, 2025). A self-represented litigant who
has demonstrated his capacity to aggressively litigate his case is afforded less leeway in
determining whether he has shown good cause under Rule 4(m). Isijola v. US
Telecommunications, Inc., 768 F. Supp. 3d 157, 160 (D. Mass. 2025).
Plaintiffs filed the amended complaint on April 10, 2025. Despite Plaintiff Staples’s
claimed disabilities and impairments, Plaintiffs have made many filings in this case that
demonstrate their ability to litigate. Less than a month after filing the amended complaint,
Plaintiffs filed an objection to Defendants’ motion to extend time to answer the amended
complaint. Doc. No. 51. Plaintiffs then filed a motion for expedited consideration of that objection
(Doc. No. 52), a motion for entry of default (Doc. No. 57), a motion to compel discovery (Doc.
No. 58), a motion to extend time to serve the new defendants (Doc. No. 59), an emergency
addendum to the motion for default (Doc. No. 61), a motion to extend time to respond to
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 65), a motion for a temporary restraining order and a
preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 66), a response to Defendants’ objection to their motion for an
extension of time (Doc. No. 67), a motion to file exhibits (Doc. No. 71), and a motion to stay ruling
on the motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 72). The court allowed extra time to complete service because
of the same issues that Staples again raises in his response to the show cause order. End. Or. Sept.
9, 2025.
Plaintiffs have not shown good cause for their failure to complete service. Given their
litigation history, Plaintiffs have not shown any likelihood that they would complete service even
if they were granted yet another extension of time. Further, the served Defendants moved to
Case 1:24-cv-00331-LM-TSM Document 86 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 4

4
dismiss the claims in the case, and the court recommends that the district judge grant the motion
to dismiss. Plaintiffs’ failure to complete service would be prejudicial to the existing Defendants
as well as the new and unserved Defendants.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should dismiss the claims against the new
Defendants added in the amended complaint (Doc. No. 48), other than Governor Ayotte, for lack
of service.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of
receipt of this notice. The objection period may be extended upon motion. Failure to file any
objection within the specified time waives the right to appeal the district court's Order. See Santos-
Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016). Only those issues raised in the written
objections “‘are subject to review in the district court,’” and any issues “‘not preserved by such
objection are precluded on appeal.’” Id. (citations omitted).
Talesha L. Saint-Marc
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: February 12, 2026
cc: Frank Staples, pro se.
Kathleen Boussier, pro se.
Counsel of record.
Case 1:24-cv-00331-LM-TSM Document 86 Filed 02/12/26 Page 4 of 4